I hear you clearly SR. Glad to have you in on this convo, bud.
If Zion, and that's a huge if, was focused, healthy, and willing to put 110% in, you'd see defense unlike you've ever seen. I remember watching the small amount of college games he was in and that dude was great on both ends. Some people just get too content when they always have signed on the dotted line and know no matter what that $ is guaranteed. I don't see that dog in him whatsoever these days and it's truly sad.
If Zion's trajectory was what it was speculated to be, I don't even think we'd be entraining any Giannis discussions and only Zion discussions. I like Giannis but I clearly don't remember him being anything close to Zion on the court in his first yr or so. The only thing Giannis had, early on in his career compared to Zion, was not being injured.
It is what it is though, Zion is a bust even though he averages 24ppg. When you can muster up more than 20-40 games a season, no matter your production on court, you're a bust in the NBA. SMH...
One could say that Spurs passed on him because Derrick and Dejounte were on the roster.
And I don't think Fox/Haliburton situation was that bad for the Kings, it's just that they failed to build around Fox later on and then he asked out.
If we get Harper and it becomes a similar situation, we could get a lot for him or Castle later on. Fox won't ever be a negative asset and we didn't pay much for him, that outcome is also fine.
A lot of NBA would be jealous of TP and Manu’s long career of having to play with Timmy, and every year contending. The Spurs have the opportunity of duplicating that success. They have the blue print of a steady organization, a young consummate player on Wemby with all the advantages of skills and physique, Fox, Castle and now Harper. If you have an opportunity to contend every year, and plant your family in one city, your kids not having to move schools. This perception of jumping off from a championship team because of not maxing out on the money? I think many players would prefer the former, staying with a contender, play and hopefully his jersey retired by the same team. It would depend on the organization doing what is right, and the Spurs have been the model of excellence.
The Spurs will draft Harper at #2 for themselves. I won’t even trade for 30 yrs old Giannis let alone Trey Murphy III.
fair point
well that's what I said too (most likely Fox)
I'm not advocating trading Harper, but I don't buy that he's going to accept waiting up to 4 years to be handed "his own team" and given that they can't offer him the opportunity to show he's worthy of that or a roster that fits around him, he's more than likely going to depreciate in value between now and whenever it is a decision is made on Fox or him.
What a horrible take.
Why would he wait for 4 years?
And why would he even have his own team? This is Wemby's team even if we had Luka or SGA.
Harper will get 30mpg, if not more, in his rookie year.
More than enough minutes to show his worth.
If he's indeed the second coming of Harden, he'll find himself in the starting lineup in no time.
If he's smart he'll quickly realize playing with Wemby is the best possible situation for him.
No need to look further than his father who wasted his prime on garbage rosters before he got to play with MJ.
The premise of the thread is weird to me.
Of course the Spurs is betting that Fox/Wemby/Castle are the core, although I'd replace Harper there and they'll keep Fox as long as they can or if needed.
Harper truly has the capability of carrying a huge offensive load as a guard. Not saying he's an alpha or a personality or whatever, but that his skill and talent could project as a franchise player. He's very possibly going to be great alongside Wembanyama or, if something bad happens to our beanpole, lead the team himself. It's going to work out great.
Harden was the 6th man for his 3 first NBA seasons on a team that eventually made the NBA finals. That should actually be your main argument for drafting Harper.
Also starting out in an offball 3-point shooting role and then being the ball handler against benches is a pretty good development path for a lead guard. Where you don't give him too much responsibility at the beginning and can ramp that up every year.
There are valid arguments for both cases, which makes this a fun discussion.
Harden had a slow start, Harper will surely get a bigger role than what Harden had in his first two seasons.
My opinion is that Castle isn't a natural point guard and that there won't be that much overlap with Harper if we're talking their roles as long as both develop their 3pt shot.Also starting out in an offball 3-point shooting role and then being the ball handler against benches is a pretty good development path for a lead guard. Where you don't give him too much responsibility at the beginning and can ramp that up in every year.
There are valid arguments for both cases.
Basketball has also changed a lot from Harden's early years, guards who can't self-create aren't going to be a thing in a few years.
OKC was starting Sefolosha/Jeff Green/KD next to Westbrook in those years, no chance that would happen in today's game.
Do we even know if Harper cares about being a PG? It's not like with the NFL where being a QB is massively different than any other position in terms if earnings or accolades. Harper may develop into a play-making wing rather than a PG and be completely fine with it. Right now, his lack of off-ball experience is hurting his stock more than any other area. Taking a couple of years working on it just makes him a more complete player than he'd be if he was the man on a bad team like Utah or Brooklyn. He'll likely never have to deal with black-hole or hero-ball stigmas because he'll get to come up on a team that let him grow the rest of his game.
I like him as the starting two-guard from opening night.
Do we even know if Harper cares about being a PG? It's not like with the NFL where being a QB is massively different than any other position in terms if earnings or accolades. Harper may develop into a play-making wing rather than a PG and be completely fine with it. Right now, his lack of off-ball experience is hurting his stock more than any other area. Taking a couple of years working on it just makes him a more complete player than he'd be if he was the man on a bad team like Utah or Brooklyn. He'll likely never have to deal with black-hole or hero-ball stigmas because he'll get to come up on a team that let him grow the rest of his game.
I like him as the starting two-guard from opening night.
2 guards 2 wings 1 big
length at guards/wings desireable
Draft Harper and I believe the spurs are 1 PF/C away from being a quality playoff team
Call me supers ious or whatever, but I'd just hate for this to be potentially the THIRD time that a guard that gets passed over because of fit with De'aaron Fox ends up turning into an all-NBA guy (Luka, Haliburton)
PS lol kings
Does anybody else have the feeling that Wemby will actually take less than the max to make sure that the team can keep everybody?
I have a feeling he might as he is that type of person. If he really likes his teammates and wants to keep the team together, I think he might.
Agree. He’s the Timmy of this young group. He needs to set the example, being coachable and also that it’s not all about the money.
It doesn’t hurt that he’ll be crushing it in the endorsement game.
I think so; he’ll set the example hopefully.
3 years ago we had to accept that Sochan, KJ, and Vassell were our “core.” Then the next year we got Wemby. And now none of these losers are our “core.”
We don’t have to accept anything right now. We literally have zero information on Harper. We don’t have to accept anything. If Harper is better than Castle will the front office “bet” on Castle? If Harper is a better version of Fox do you think the Front Office will still “bet” on Fox?
If they were really “betting” on Fox, Wemby, and Castle as our core going forward then they wouldn’t even draft Harper. They’d draft Ace. And they would’ve hired a real coach. And get actual assistants. Instead they are really hedging their bets and drafting Harper and signing a dude that is going to be fired in 3 years time.
Thank you KobesAchilles… a player is only a part of the “core” until someone better comes along. The thing is, that players better than Wemby don’t come along… players better than Vassell do. That’s the driving force behind a member of the “core” being “untouchable”
Harper isn't going to be good like castle in his rookie year. What I mean is, dependable in big games, playoffs or play-in. He'll be good for a rookie.
Castle has played zero big games, zero play-in games, and zero playoff games just like Harper so how would you know?
I’ll respond to you directly instead of the guy you’re quoting. Never enjoyed engaging with him since all he cares about is throwing personal insults.
That said, I think it’s off to say the Spurs were building around Vassell, Keldon, or Sochan. The last real core they tried to build around was Kawhi and Aldridge. Once that ended, they shifted gears completely. They started tearing things down, collecting assets, and positioning themselves for the draft.
They were not building around those guys. They were waiting for someone like Wemby to come along. And now, for the first time since that era, it feels like they might actually believe they have more than one real core piece on the roster. Wemby is obviously the centerpiece, but Fox and Castle might be the first players they truly feel comfortable building around for the long term.
That is the entire premise of this thread. It is a hypothetical based on the idea that the front office believes it has finally found its core. Not just the top two or three players from any random year, but a real foundation to move forward with.
Any argument predicated upon Zion being healthy has the same practical consequences as anything predicated on pigs flying (I bet they could give hawks a nice run for their money)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote